AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

If you aren’t too familiar with interstate commerce, I found this excellent analysis of the original purpose for the federal government’s power of regulating interstate commerce. The power to regulate was not meant to be on the actual items themselves, but the imposition of tariffs by states on each other and with foreign countries. If State A imports widgets from State B and State C, it would be harmful to state relations to allow State A to impose a tariff on the goods from State B and not on State C. State B could retaliate on State A and C with its own tariffs. It doesn’t matter what the widget is, it is the actual “commerce” and “trade” that needs to be regulated.

The federal government has developed lots of powers using interstate commerce as a justification. Let’s look at the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In United States vs. Lopez, the government argued it could ban firearms in schools because possession of a firearm there would lead to violent crime which would cause damages, increase insurance rates and then spread to the greater economy there by affecting interstate commerce. The Supreme Court struck this down in 1995 because it gave the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate anything that might eventually lead to violent crime. The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution and the court found that possession of a handgun was not a commercial activity or even remotely related to one.

So what’s all this have to do with Montana? The law Montana passed makes firearm regulations justified by interstate commerce moot. If the federal government wanted to impose a 50 cent tax on each round of ammunition, it would use interstate commerce as a justification because that ammunition could move over state lines. Remember, there is no enumerated power given to Congress that specifically gives it the power to regulate ammunition. The Montana law says that if the ammunition is manufactured, sold, possessed and used in Montana, then the federal government has absolutely zero power to regulate that ammunition.

This is big. Utah and Texas have similar laws going through their state legislatures. States are telling the federal government that they want them to go the hell away. This isn’t just about firearm laws either. The DEA has been prosecuting people here in California for marijuana violations even though the state okay’d medical marijuana over a decade ago. A similar law passed here could say that all marijuana grown, sold and used for medicinal purposes in California is exempt from federal law. This isn’t about what issues you agree or disagree with, this is all about state rights and fighting back against unenumerated powers held by the federal government.

I truly believe the founding fathers never intended the government to wield such far reaching powers and any movement back towards the idea of putting the federal government in a box and leaving everything outside that box up to the states is okay with me. It will be interesting to see what happens with these laws and how things go down in the Supreme Court when they’re eventually challenged. Something tells me the bureaucrats won’t cede their power quietly.

Let’s take one hypothetical situation, tweak the parameters a few times and see what effect the different parameters have on the outcome of an event like a public shooting.

Constant conditions:

• 1 large room with 1 door and no windows
• There are 20 people in the room
• A man enters the room armed with two semi-automatic pistols and extra loaded magazines with the intent of murdering everyone in the room (public shooters are overwhelmingly male so that was intentional)
• The gunman has the element of surprise and has a pretty good idea about who will be occupying the room

Situation #1: All 20 people in the room are members of law enforcement armed with Glock 21 .45 semi-automatic pistols.
Result #1: The gunman enters the room and begins firing immediately. By the time officers identify the gunman as a threat and neutralize the threat, several of them have been struck.

Situation #2: All 20 occupants of the room are normal citizens. 2 of the occupants have concealed weapon permits and are carrying semi-automatic pistols concealed on their person.
Result #2: The gunman enters the room knowing that someone could potentially have a concealed weapon. He cautiously opens fire as he does not know who might be armed. Both armed occupants draw their weapons and neutralize the threat. Several occupants were struck including one of the armed occupants.

Situation #3: All 20 of the occupants are normal citizens. State law either prohibits all weapons in the building and the surrounding area or concealed carry is explicitly illegal everywhere. The gunman, who has premeditated the murder of everyone in the room, breaks this law when he pulls into the parking lot with the firearms.
Result #3: The gunman enters the room and begins methodically murdering the occupants of the room. The gunman is confident that he will not encounter armed resistance. Several occupants attempt to rush the gunman, but are killed before disarming him. After killing the resistive occupants, the gunman orders his hostages against the wall. He moves to each one and shoots them in the head. After making sure everyone in the room is dead, he turns the gun on himself.

1. Which situation sounds the most familiar?
2. Which situation is the most tragic?
3. Are gun free zones like a university safer than areas saturated with legally carried firearms like a police department?
4. Does concealed carry by law abiding citizens increase or decrease a murderer’s effectiveness in carrying out a multiple victim public shooting?
5. Would someone intent on murdering innocent people go where he will meet zero armed resistance or where he might encounter armed resistance?

Common sense questions that have common sense answers.

So they check off that I have the trigger lock and receipt and hand me my gun. So now I have an unopened trigger lock and no lawful requirement that it actually be used. This is just one of California’s wacky gun laws. They should pass a law saying all scooter/motorcycle sales (even private party sales) be accompanied with proof of ownership of a helmet, but then you don’t actually have to wear one while riding. I don’t see why I shouldn’t return the trigger lock and reclaim my $22.

Off to Seattle tonight for a nice little vacation. I hit my one year with the county last week so I can actually use my vacation. Also, my promotion went throught last week so I’m now an Application Developer I.

At politician school you learn two things: find a legitimate problem and then create a dumb solution that doesn’t address the actual problem. Firearm laws are a great example of this.

The new hands-free cell phone law is also a perfect example. There’s two components to talking on a hand held cell phone: holding the phone to the side of your face and carrying out a conversation. The politician looks at this situation and sees two possibilities: make it illegal to hold a phone in your hand while driving or make it illegal to have conversations while driving. If I put my stupid politician hat on I immediately realize that holding a phone to your head drastically increases the risk of an accident and for the sake of public safety it must be stopped.

Removing the stupid politician hat I understand that my knee jerk reaction might not be valid and requires further investigation. Maybe scientists have done research into this problem area?

• Cell Phone Users Drive ‘Blind’; Study Explains Why Hands-Free Phones Just As Bad As Hand-held
• Cognitive Psychologists Show Conversations Lower Visual Abilities
• Passengers, Not Just Mobile Phones, Contribute To Road Accidents

Hmmm how about that? It is quite possible that holding a conversation makes up most of the increase of collision risk.

When I look at the situation and use common sense I come to the conclusion that to have any noticeable effect on collisions all activities that distract a driver have to be made illegal, not just using a hand held cell phone. Here’s a short list:

• Participating in any conversation
• Listening to the radio/music/talk radio
• Looking at billboards, bumper stickers, license plate frames or any other advertisements
• Consuming food or beverages
• Applying makeup
• Driving with one hand (manual transmission drivers would have a 3 second period between shifts to place both hands back on the wheel)
• Driving while holding any object
• Sneezing/Coughing/Yawning/Sleeping/Farting/Barfing/Laughing/Stretching/Waving/Smiling/Thinking

Okay I’m just kidding. Kind of. To spite the new law I might just drive around with a banana held up to my head blaring “Ring ring ring, banana phone” over my stereo. If it is illegal to talk on a phone in your hand surely I would get pulled over for doing the same with a piece of fresh fruit.